We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Words are assault? In my state, specific threats to specific individuals in and of itself, is a misdemeanor. Following thru with action is assault.

Accepted that many forms of commercial speech are regulated and that fighting words is always a common law defense. Even works sometimes. Disorderly conduct (loud profane speech) gets you a bed for the night. There are also civil sanctions such as was used to financially ruin the Klan and similar groups. Ultimately your freedom of speech ends when I refuse to listen.

However, the Founders understood citizens have the right and duty of rebellion against unjust government. This is impaired when private (nothing in the article suggest her writings were public) writings/speech and possession of books/writings are criminal offenses. When public speech to willing listeners in the proper manner, place and time is made criminal there is right and duty of rebellion.

Should I admit to possession of plans for a .50 caliber air rifle or encyclopedias which show the inner workings of bombs, possession of ammonium nitrate, diesel fuel, pipe and roofing nails or should I not. Will not also mention various field manials, surgical texts, cook books and knives either. After all, combined with the statement "All tranzis are evil. Evil must be purged". the State will conclude I am a terrorist and committed assault on Tranzis.. That is where the British prosecution of an obnoxious adult leads.

It is dubious you know what the law is your state, notwithstanding, misdemeanors are criminally punishable.
Look up your state statutes.

Miss Maliki isn't a founding father just a stinking terrorist.

She had a profile on the social networking website Hi-5, where she called for the execution of "depraved" Westerners .

The British-born Muslim listed her interests as helping the Mujahideen "in any way I can".

She violated:
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)
Part I
Introductory
1 Terrorism: interpretation (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

Now, don't ya go and get yourself arrested. USA has similar legislation.

I thought you might like this spoof of a hiring interview at a "major university" for a Friday morning chuckle (see link below). I enjoy your site very much. Thank you for all your hard work. And I'm a little envious that you'll have such nice pheasant for dinner.

I do not like hate speech laws NJ but I think "convicted of poetry, in part" might be a stretch. She did more than write poems or have thought crimes. She actively advocated for the murder of her fellow citizens. I have some doubts about that falling into the category of protected free speech anymore than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater does. Curious as to The Barristers opinion. According to the article....

She had a library of material that she had collected for terrorist purposes.

Malik, who worked as a shop assistant airside in a branch of WHSmith at the airport, also owned an Al Qaeda encyclopaedia of Jihad, a Mujahideen poison handbook and a 'terrorist handbook' which explained how to make bombs.

On the hard drive of her computer police found a copy of a sniper rifle manual, a firearms manual, anti-tank weaponry, a document entitled How To Win Hand To Hand Fighting, and pictures of weapons.

Inherent in free speech is the fact it is distasteful, treasonous and poisonous. When words turn to deeds, they should be punished. But not until. Monitor her, bug her computer and apartment, deny her a security clearance, deport her if not a citizen, all good things to do. Sending some one to prison because she had bad thoughts and bad books not good.

Nothing wrong, just as the poems were probably not a crime if viewed just on their own but I think the British court may have considered the total of the circumstances and all the evidence accumulated.

"...when the Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia decided to write the (1997) book — due to being fed up with the prevalent anti-Americanism (abroad as well as stateside) — it was during the supposedly warm and cuddly Clinton days of yore!"

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: